President of North America v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co.

E.D. Missouri

President of North America v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co.

11 F. 380

DecidedJuly 1, 1882

StatusPublished

This text of 11 F. 380 (President of North America v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

President of North America v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., 11 F. 380 (E.D. Mo. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Treat, D. J.

These’eases were heard at the same time,'and rest mainly on the same general principles. Some of the evidence introduced was incompetent, it being merely hearsay, as contradistinguished from “ verbal facts.” Discarding all such, the main question decisive of the eases is as to defendant’s negligence. Although the shipment of cotton on open or flat cars may not be in itself such an act of negligence as would make the carrier liable under all contingencies, yet, when such shipment is made, there is devolved upon the carrier the duty to take the additional precautions needed for the protection and safety of the cotton. In these eases it seems that not only was no such precaution taken, but that the train, in two of the cases, was hurried forward when fires were adjacent to the track, or sufficiently so to render it more than probable that so inflammable an article would be ignited and destroyed. In the other case, the negligence, although not so gross, was extremely culpable. It is admitted that if the loss was caused by defendant’s negligence the plaintiff must recover. It is unnecessary to consider what effect, if any, the Texas statute would have upon the exemptions in the hills of lading against loss by fire, so far as the defendant is concerned. Rev. St. Texas, 1879, p. 48.

Judgments for the plaintiff will be entered for the respective amounts, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per year from January 10, 1877, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Treat, D. J.

These’eases were heard at the same time,'and rest mainly on the same general principles. Some of the evidence introduced was incompetent, it being merely hearsay, as contradistinguished from “ verbal facts.” Discarding all such, the main question decisive of the eases is as to defendant’s negligence. Although the shipment of cotton on open or flat cars may not be in itself such an act of negligence as would make the carrier liable under all contingencies, yet, when such shipment is made, there is devolved upon the carrier the duty to take the additional precautions needed for the protection and safety of the cotton. In these eases it seems that not only was no such precaution taken, but that the train, in two of the cases, was hurried forward when fires were adjacent to the track, or sufficiently so to render it more than probable that so inflammable an article would be ignited and destroyed. In the other case, the negligence, although not so gross, was extremely culpable. It is admitted that if the loss was caused by defendant’s negligence the plaintiff must recover. It is unnecessary to consider what effect, if any, the Texas statute would have upon the exemptions in the hills of lading against loss by fire, so far as the defendant is concerned. Rev. St. Texas, 1879, p. 48.

Judgments for the plaintiff will be entered for the respective amounts, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per year from January 10, 1877, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F. 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/president-of-north-america-v-st-louis-iron-mountain-southern-ry-co-moed-1882.